Well, it had to happen. At some point, any blogger writing industry commentary will get a request for disclosure of some type. I got mine yesterday.

My post Tuesday regarding the two groups attempting to form industry associations for the podcasting community did not sit well with Scott Bourne, who is leading an effort to provide an alternative to the Association of Downloadable Media. Scott asked me in email to disclose any relationships with ADM, and then a commenter on the original post asked some fair questions about Blogger & Podcaster’s relationship with the International Blogging & New Media Association (IBNMA).

All righty, let’s proceed.

I interviewed ADM leader Susan Bratton in early July, prior to the launch of the organization’s web site, and the opening of paid membership. Podcasting is still a relatively small community, and it seems that we know lots of the same people. It also turns out that Susan currently serves on the board of a company I worked for six years ago. I no longer have any connection to that company.

The news story I wrote was a pretty straight recitation of the ADM’s announcement. Not a very exciting article, but a basic explanation of what ADM had planned. At the time, I didn’t know of any controversy surrounding ADM or the idea of an industry association for podcasters.

There was and is no business relationship between Blogger & Podcaster and ADM. I suppose it’s possible that ADM could choose to purchase advertising in B&P, but that hasn’t happened, and if it does, it will have no effect on our coverage of ADM, just as it has no effect on our coverage of other businesses and organizations in the industry.

Last week, I received an email inviting me to join the ADM. It was not a personal note, but a formatted invite. The invitation did not mention a “press membership”, a “discount”, a seat on the board, or a free cocktail at the organizational meeting. I did not respond to the invitation, partly because I had become aware that an alternative organization was forming, and that it would not be appropriate for me, or our magazine, to give the appearance of advocating one organization over the other.

As I prepared the news section for our September issue, I made a note to learn more about Scott Bourne’s alternative podcast trade group. I read his blog when I can, and it was apparent shortly after ADM’s launch that he distrusted the means by which ADM was organizing itself, and that others agreed with him. That sounded like a pretty good news story.

I began working on the news section this Monday. Coincidentally, I got an email from Neil Vineberg, a PR person I have communicated with before. He told me about a survey that podcasters could take about the direction of the proposed industry association, currently called The Association of Podcasters & Online Media Producers. He asked if I would like to speak to Scott Bourne, and if I would consider writing about the group and the survey in my blog and in the magazine. This was great timing, and I arranged to talk to Scott on Tuesday afternoon. By the way, I once appeared on a panel with Scott, and though we didn’t talk about it, I think we also know some of the same people.

I asked Scott about his goals for the Association of Podcasters & Online Media Producers, about next steps, about how it would be organized, etc. I asked whether it was possible or desirable to work with ADM, and what the main bones of contention between those who supported the new group, and ADM were. Scott was emphatic that he would not seek any office in the group, and that all podcasters would have the chance to join it at no cost. He also pointed me to some of the group’s leading backers.

When we hung up, I checked out the survey and read a few of Scott’s blog posts. At that point, I decided that a post of my own would be a good idea. I could link to the survey and get ahead of the news cycle we live with in a monthly magazine. More importantly, people who read this post would have the chance to take the survey before August 13, and learn about the Association of Podcasters & Online Media Producers. Goodness for everyone, right?

In my blog post, I described the organization as Scott had explained it to me. Near the end, I quoted a survey question that I felt was leading, and I said that others were as well. I also indicated specifically that I would not be taking sides in the dispute between the two podcast associations. These two statements do not conflict. I expressed an opinion about a tactical activity of the organizations I was blogging about, and I further clarified that this opinion did not indicate support for, or opposition to, the goals of that group.

Now you know what I’ve done, said and writen on this subject.

To the IBNMA question: I asked Blogger & Podcaster publisher Larry Genkin to give me a quick briefing on our relationship with IBNMA. As editor, I stay out of the business stuff, and I needed Larry’s input to be sure I had the facts straight. Here’s Larry’s comment:

Yes, there is a definitive business relationship between Blogger & Podcaster and the IBNMA. We are their official publication. All of their members receive a free print subscription to B&P, which is a key to our ongoing readership growth. Our advertisers will greatly benefit from this program. In addition we will have a major presence at their tradeshows. Our skin in the game is helping them to generate members, hence the ad in the magazine. And since we are their organizations “house” publication, we wanted to provide a forum for their president to communicate with their members each month, hence the IBNMA column.

Well, there you have it. If some perceive my statement on Tuesday that this blog would take no position in support of one industry association over another as hyperbolic, I apologize. and from an editorial point of view, it still goes. Any industry trade group making news will have an equal chance for coverage. If, like the Association of Podcasters & Online Media Producers, there’s a time-seneistive survey in the works, I’ll seriously consider blogging about it and providing a link. If a competitor to the IBNMA decides to hold a conference, they’ll get into the calendar on an equal basis. And frankly, if that happens, we might need to develop some more explicit coverage guidelines. Competing industry groups is not something I ever anticipated. Transparency is a good thing.

I hope this is helpful to those of you with questions. I do hope that whatever philosophy prevails, the fighting and accusations can become a lesser part of the conversation, leaving room for more concrete debates on the future of the industry, standards and so on. We welcome the chance to be an open forum for that debate.

This entry was posted on Thursday, August 9th, 2007 at 7:26 am and is filed under Blog Entry. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.